-
Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010)
0.01
0.013575504 = product of:
0.054302014 = sum of:
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.0068830615 = product of:
0.013766123 = sum of:
0.013766123 = weight(_text_:29 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013766123 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0045474293 = product of:
0.013642288 = sum of:
0.013642288 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013642288 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(5/20)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:29:23
-
Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide (2016)
0.01
0.011142492 = product of:
0.07428328 = sum of:
0.024761094 = weight(_text_:software in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024761094 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
0.07989157 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.30993375 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.024761094 = weight(_text_:software in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024761094 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
0.07989157 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.30993375 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.024761094 = weight(_text_:software in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024761094 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
0.07989157 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.30993375 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Abstract
- In recent years there has been an increasing demand for research evaluation within universities and other research-based organisations. In parallel, there has been an increasing recognition that traditional citation-based indicators are not able to reflect the societal impacts of research and are slow to appear. This has led to the creation of new indicators for different types of research impact as well as timelier indicators, mainly derived from the Web. These indicators have been called altmetrics, webometrics or just web metrics. This book describes and evaluates a range of web indicators for aspects of societal or scholarly impact, discusses the theory and practice of using and evaluating web indicators for research assessment and outlines practical strategies for obtaining many web indicators. In addition to describing impact indicators for traditional scholarly outputs, such as journal articles and monographs, it also covers indicators for videos, datasets, software and other non-standard scholarly outputs. The book describes strategies to analyse web indicators for individual publications as well as to compare the impacts of groups of publications. The practical part of the book includes descriptions of how to use the free software Webometric Analyst to gather and analyse web data. This book is written for information science undergraduate and Master?s students that are learning about alternative indicators or scientometrics as well as Ph.D. students and other researchers and practitioners using indicators to help assess research impact or to study scholarly communication.
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Vis, F.: Commenting on YouTube videos : From guatemalan rock to El Big Bang (2012)
0.01
0.009950917 = product of:
0.049754586 = sum of:
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
0.0068830615 = product of:
0.013766123 = sum of:
0.013766123 = weight(_text_:29 in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013766123 = score(doc=63,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(4/20)
- Abstract
- YouTube is one of the world's most popular websites and hosts numerous amateur and professional videos. Comments on these videos might be researched to give insights into audience reactions to important issues or particular videos. Yet, little is known about YouTube discussions in general: how frequent they are, who typically participates, and the role of sentiment. This article fills this gap through an analysis of large samples of text comments on YouTube videos. The results identify patterns and give some benchmarks against which future YouTube research into individual videos can be compared. For instance, the typical YouTube comment was mildly positive, was posted by a 29-year-old male, and contained 58 characters. About 23% of comments in the complete comment sets were replies to previous comments. There was no typical density of discussion on YouTube videos in the sense of the proportion of replies to other comments: videos with both few and many replies were common. The YouTube audience engaged with each other disproportionately when making negative comments, however; positive comments elicited few replies. The biggest trigger of discussion seemed to be religion, whereas the videos attracting the least discussion were predominantly from the Music, Comedy, and How to & Style categories. This suggests different audience uses for YouTube, from passive entertainment to active debating.
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.01
0.009483791 = product of:
0.047418952 = sum of:
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
0.0045474293 = product of:
0.013642288 = sum of:
0.013642288 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013642288 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(4/20)
- Abstract
- Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
-
Thelwall, M.; Prabowo, R.: Identifying and characterizing public science-related fears from RSS feeds (2007)
0.01
0.009454718 = product of:
0.06303145 = sum of:
0.021010485 = weight(_text_:software in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021010485 = score(doc=137,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07989157 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
0.021010485 = weight(_text_:software in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021010485 = score(doc=137,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07989157 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
0.021010485 = weight(_text_:software in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021010485 = score(doc=137,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07989157 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Abstract
- A feature of modern democracies is public mistrust of scientists and the politicization of science policy, e.g., concerning stem cell research and genetically modified food. While the extent of this mistrust is debatable, its political influence is tangible. Hence, science policy researchers and science policy makers need early warning of issues that resonate with a wide public so that they can make timely and informed decisions. In this article, a semi-automatic method for identifying significant public science-related concerns from a corpus of Internet-based RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds is described and shown to be an improvement on a previous similar system because of the introduction of feedbased aggregation. In addition, both the RSS corpus and the concept of public science-related fears are deconstructed, revealing hidden complexity. This article also provides evidence that genetically modified organisms and stem cell research were the two major policyrelevant science concern issues, although mobile phone radiation and software security also generated significant interest.
-
Thelwall, M.: Homophily in MySpace (2009)
0.01
0.007716874 = product of:
0.051445827 = sum of:
0.017148608 = weight(_text_:23 in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017148608 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
0.017148608 = weight(_text_:23 in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017148608 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
0.017148608 = weight(_text_:23 in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017148608 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Date
- 23. 2.2009 19:32:25
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.0071312482 = product of:
0.047541652 = sum of:
0.015144716 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015144716 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
0.044633795 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.02512105 = weight(_text_:der in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02512105 = score(doc=77,freq=16.0), product of:
0.044984195 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.5584417 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.007275887 = product of:
0.02182766 = sum of:
0.02182766 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02182766 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Abstract
- Die Webometrie ist ein Teilbereich der Informationswissenschaft der zur Zeit auf die Analyse von Linkstrukturen konzentriert ist. Er ist stark von der Zitationsanalyse geprägt, wie der empirische Schwerpunkt auf der Wissenschaftsanalyse zeigt. In diesem Beitrag diskutieren wir die Nutzung linkbasierter Maße in einem breiten informetrischen Kontext und bewerten verschiedene Verfahren, auch im Hinblick auf ihr generelles Potentialfür die Sozialwissenschaften. Dabei wird auch ein allgemeiner Rahmenfür Linkanalysen mit den erforderlichen Arbeitsschritten vorgestellt. Abschließend werden vielversprechende zukünftige Anwendungsfelder der Webometrie benannt, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Analyse von Blogs.
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406
-
Wilkinson, D.; Thelwall, M.: Trending Twitter topics in English : an international comparison (2012)
0.01
0.006430729 = product of:
0.042871524 = sum of:
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Date
- 26. 8.2012 13:57:23
-
Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.: Scholars on soap boxes : science communication and dissemination in TED videos (2013)
0.01
0.006430729 = product of:
0.042871524 = sum of:
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Date
- 23. 3.2013 12:27:42
-
Abrizah, A.; Thelwall, M.: Can the impact of non-Western academic books be measured? : an investigation of Google Books and Google Scholar for Malaysia (2014)
0.01
0.006430729 = product of:
0.042871524 = sum of:
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Abstract
- Citation indicators are increasingly used in book-based disciplines to support peer review in the evaluation of authors and to gauge the prestige of publishers. However, because global citation databases seem to offer weak coverage of books outside the West, it is not clear whether the influence of non-Western books can be assessed with citations. To investigate this, citations were extracted from Google Books and Google Scholar to 1,357 arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) books published by 5 university presses during 1961-2012 in 1 non-Western nation, Malaysia. A significant minority of the books (23% in Google Books and 37% in Google Scholar, 45% in total) had been cited, with a higher proportion cited if they were older or in English. The combination of Google Books and Google Scholar is therefore recommended, with some provisos, for non-Western countries seeking to differentiate between books with some impact and books with no impact, to identify the highly-cited works or to develop an indicator of academic publisher prestige.
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Disseminating research with web CV hyperlinks (2014)
0.00
0.0029589005 = product of:
0.029589005 = sum of:
0.0068830615 = product of:
0.013766123 = sum of:
0.013766123 = weight(_text_:29 in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013766123 = score(doc=1331,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.022705944 = product of:
0.04541189 = sum of:
0.04541189 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04541189 = score(doc=1331,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10819342 = queryWeight, product of:
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.41972876 = fieldWeight in 1331, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1331)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- Some curricula vitae (web CVs) of academics on the web, including homepages and publication lists, link to open-access (OA) articles, resources, abstracts in publishers' websites, or academic discussions, helping to disseminate research. To assess how common such practices are and whether they vary by discipline, gender, and country, the authors conducted a large-scale e-mail survey of astronomy and astrophysics, public health, environmental engineering, and philosophy across 15 European countries and analyzed hyperlinks from web CVs of academics. About 60% of the 2,154 survey responses reported having a web CV or something similar, and there were differences between disciplines, genders, and countries. A follow-up outlink analysis of 2,700 web CVs found that a third had at least one outlink to an OA target, typically a public eprint archive or an individual self-archived file. This proportion was considerably higher in astronomy (48%) and philosophy (37%) than in environmental engineering (29%) and public health (21%). There were also differences in linking to publishers' websites, resources, and discussions. Perhaps most important, however, the amount of linking to OA publications seems to be much lower than allowed by publishers and journals, suggesting that many opportunities for disseminating full-text research online are being missed, especially in disciplines without established repositories. Moreover, few academics seem to be exploiting their CVs to link to discussions, resources, or article abstracts, which seems to be another missed opportunity for publicizing research.
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023)
0.00
0.0020602958 = product of:
0.020602956 = sum of:
0.016055528 = product of:
0.032111056 = sum of:
0.032111056 = weight(_text_:engineering in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032111056 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10819342 = queryWeight, product of:
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0045474293 = product of:
0.013642288 = sum of:
0.013642288 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013642288 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.00
0.0011430491 = product of:
0.011430491 = sum of:
0.0068830615 = product of:
0.013766123 = sum of:
0.013766123 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013766123 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0045474293 = product of:
0.013642288 = sum of:
0.013642288 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013642288 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Patent citation analysis with Google (2017)
0.00
0.0011352972 = product of:
0.022705944 = sum of:
0.022705944 = product of:
0.04541189 = sum of:
0.04541189 = weight(_text_:engineering in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04541189 = score(doc=3317,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10819342 = queryWeight, product of:
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.41972876 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.
-
Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Web citations in patents : evidence of technological impact? (2017)
0.00
9.633316E-4 = product of:
0.019266631 = sum of:
0.019266631 = product of:
0.038533263 = sum of:
0.038533263 = weight(_text_:engineering in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038533263 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10819342 = queryWeight, product of:
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.
-
Mohammadi, E.; Thelwall, M.; Haustein, S.; Larivière, V.: Who reads research articles? : an altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories (2015)
0.00
8.027764E-4 = product of:
0.016055528 = sum of:
0.016055528 = product of:
0.032111056 = sum of:
0.032111056 = weight(_text_:engineering in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032111056 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10819342 = queryWeight, product of:
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 2162, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2162)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- Little detailed information is known about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read. Using data about people who register in Mendeley as readers of articles, this article explores different types of users of Clinical Medicine, Engineering and Technology, Social Science, Physics, and Chemistry articles inside and outside academia. The majority of readers for all disciplines were PhD students, postgraduates, and postdocs but other types of academics were also represented. In addition, many Clinical Medicine articles were read by medical professionals. The highest correlations between citations and Mendeley readership counts were found for types of users who often authored academic articles, except for associate professors in some sub-disciplines. This suggests that Mendeley readership can reflect usage similar to traditional citation impact if the data are restricted to readers who are also authors without the delay of impact measured by citation counts. At the same time, Mendeley statistics can also reveal the hidden impact of some research articles, such as educational value for nonauthor users inside academia or the impact of research articles on practice for readers outside academia.
-
Thelwall, M.: Directing students to new information types : a new role for Google in literature searches? (2005)
0.00
4.818143E-4 = product of:
0.009636286 = sum of:
0.009636286 = product of:
0.019272571 = sum of:
0.019272571 = weight(_text_:29 in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019272571 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 3. 6.2007 16:37:29
-
Vaughan, L.; Thelwall, M.: Search engine coverage bias : evidence and possible causes (2004)
0.00
4.1298367E-4 = product of:
0.008259674 = sum of:
0.008259674 = product of:
0.016519347 = sum of:
0.016519347 = weight(_text_:29 in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016519347 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 14. 8.2004 10:30:29
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? (2015)
0.00
4.1298367E-4 = product of:
0.008259674 = sum of:
0.008259674 = product of:
0.016519347 = sum of:
0.016519347 = weight(_text_:29 in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016519347 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 26. 4.2015 19:29:49
-
Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016)
0.00
4.1298367E-4 = product of:
0.008259674 = sum of:
0.008259674 = product of:
0.016519347 = sum of:
0.016519347 = weight(_text_:29 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016519347 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 27.12.2015 11:29:37
